8.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bad Mitterndorf, Austria.
9.  On 16 September 1989 the applicant was the victim of an assault and was heavily injured. He was brought to the Bad Aussee Hospital (Landeskrankenhaus) where he received medical treatment as he suffered from pulmonary disease. The applicant underwent an operation and was transferred to the Graz Hospital where another operation was carried out. After this medical treatment the applicant's ability to work was considerably reduced. He became unemployed and was without income.
10.  On 27 November 1992 he instituted civil proceedings against the Steiermärkische Krankenanstalten Gesellschaft mbH, the company which administers public hospitals in the region of Styria. He claimed damages for pain and suffering and loss of profit. He alleged that medical malpractice had caused his state of health and that the surgeons treating him had infringed their duty to provide explanations and advice concerning the treatment.
11.  The Leoben Regional Court (Landesgericht) held eight hearings between 12 January, 1993 and 15 December 1994. It heard numerous witnesses and medical experts. On 30 September 1993 the applicant challenged one of the experts. However, his challenge was dismissed on 14 October 1993.
12.  On 15 December 1994 the Regional Court gave a partial judgment (Teilurteil). It considered the claim for damages to be well-founded in principle (dem Grunde nach), while the exact amount of compensation had to be determined in further proceedings. It found that the surgeons treating the applicant had infringed their duty to provide explanations and advice concerning the treatment.
13.  On 3 February 1995 the defendant filed an appeal against this judgment and on 5 March 1995 the applicant commented on this appeal.
14.  On 22 June 1995 the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal.
15.  On 22 November 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on points of law (außerordentliche Revision). Thus, the judgment finding the applicant's claim to be well-founded in principle became final.
16.  Between 8 March 1996 and 10 January 1997 the Regional Court, presided by another judge, held five hearings, at which it heard further medical experts. The issue to be clarified at this stage of the proceedings was the level of the applicant's ability to work before the incident and the extent to which the medical treatment received at the hospitals influenced his ability to work. On the basis of these findings, the amount of compensation due had to be assessed.
17.  On 23 October 1996 the applicant amended and extended his claim.
18.  On 10 January 1997 the Regional Court ordered a medical expert to submit his opinion. On 28 May and on 17 June 1997 the Court urged the expert to deliver his opinion.
19.  On 18 June 1997 the applicant filed a request under Section 91 (Fristsetzungsantrag) of the Courts Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) and asked the Court of Appeal to set a time-limit for the delivery of a medical expert report as the appointed expert had not submitted his report for more than five months.
20.  On 2 July 1997 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's request and fixed a four weeks' time-limit for the delivery of the report.
21.  On 7 July 1997 the expert submitted the opinion. Subsequently, the parties were invited to comment on it.
22.  On 24 November 1997 the Regional Court held another hearing and appointed a further expert. On 25 March 1998 the new expert report was delivered. On 22 April 1998 the defendant challenged the new expert for bias (Ablehnungsantrag). On the same day the court dismissed this application.
23.  On 12 June 1998 the applicant requested the court to hold a further hearing. On 22 July and 5 November 1998 the Regional Court held further hearings at which the applicant extended his claim.
24.  On 9 February 1999 the Regional Court gave a partial judgment and determined the precise amounts of compensation to be paid by the defendant.
25.  On 19 March 1999 both the applicant and the defendant filed an appeal.
26.  On 7 October 1999 the Court of Appeal, after a hearing, dismissed the applicant's appeal and partly allowed the defendant's appeal. It reduced the amount of compensation and quashed parts of the Regional Court's judgment and, to this extent, remitted the case to the Regional Court. This decision was served on 27 February 2000. On 27 March 2000 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law.
27.  On 30 Mai 2000 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law. This decision was served on 27 July 2000.
28.  On 19 October 2000 the applicant filed new submissions concerning his remaining claim and on 14 November 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing.
29.  On 9 February 2001 the Regional Court appointed a medical expert who submitted his opinion on 24 March 2001. On 3 April 2001 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to comment on this opinion, which he did on 24 April 2001.
30.  On 12 July 2001 the Regional Court held a hearing.
31.  On 25 January 2002 the Regional Court partly allowed the applicant's claim, granting the amount of EUR 204,139.99, inter alia, for medical and travelling costs and a monthly payment of EUR 472.37.
32.  On 19 March 2002 both the applicant and the defendant filed appeals against this decision.
33.  On 16 June 2002 the Court of Appeal partly allowed both appeals. It reduced the amount to EUR 184,619.40 and remitted the case concerning the travelling costs and the monthly payment to the Regional Court.
34.  On 19 February 2003 the Regional Court held another hearing. It decided to repeat the taking of evidence as, meanwhile, the case had been taken over by another judge.
35.  On 30 July 2003 the Regional Court partly allowed the applicant's claim granting the amount of EUR 125,782.47, inter alia, for medical and travelling costs and a monthly payment of EUR 472.37.
36.  On 22 September 2003 the defendant filed an appeal and on 22 October 2003 the applicant filed his observations.
37.  On 5 November 2003 the Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal in part and awarded the applicant the amount of EUR 123,602.29. It confirmed the Regional Court's judgment for the remainder. The judgment was served on the applicant's counsel on 25 November 2003.